A/B Testing and Local Maxima (again)
Given the large amount of commentary on my first A/B testing post, I was surprised that there was none for my "A/B testing and local maxima" post. That's when I discovered that when you start a post and publish it several days later, if you don't update the date, it keeps the start date and thus gets buried in the queue. So, if you haven't subscribed to my atom feed, you may not have seen it on the front page. This is just a heads up that I took the time to answer some questions people had.
Freelance Perl/Testing/Agile consultant and trainer. See http://www.allaroundtheworld.fr/ for our services. If you have a problem with Perl, we will solve it for you.
And don't forget to buy my book! http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Perl-Curtis-Poe/dp/1118013840/
I saw it. I started to write a reply too… but in so doing I addressed all of my own points and ended up with nothing to say, aside from concluding with a hazy feeling that A/B testing is more limited in scope of aim than it’s usually made to sound – one I’ll have to chew over for a while for it to gain some definition.
Warnock applies.
From my experience and reading about the experience of others, it's actually more limited in scope than it could be because many people only use it to tweak page layout (a huge mistake). However, I see many companies make huge gains with A/B testing and while there are those who don't see the value, I strongly disagree with them. It's only one tool in your toolbox, but it's a very powerful one which really has to be seen to be appreciated.
To which I respond “hazy feeling”. It’s about when to disregard A/B testing in favour of other tools, not what scope to limit A/B tests to.
Which reminds me of the one big issue I have with blogs.perl.org: the front page doesn't have a "next" button that allows one to go have a look past the first few recent blog posts.
@BooK: post a follow up to this bug and it might get acted on sooner?